Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2016

The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has six minutes and 50 seconds left in questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Egmont.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge and thank our military men and women who have been engaged in overseas combat over the years for their contribution, and for standing up for what this country believes in.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he could explain to the House what difference the removal of the CF-18s will have on our mission, as well as the impact that moving toward what we feel is a more humanitarian mission will have on the lives of ordinary civilians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of validity to what the member is asking. We need to recognize that when it comes to the Middle East and ISIL, there is a different approach being taken between today's government and the former Conservative government.

If we look at the contrast between the three parties inside the chamber today, on the one hand we have the opposition saying that the only way we can contribute is by having the CF-18s involved. The Conservative Party and the former government is wrong on that point. Then we have the members of the third party of the House saying that the Canadian Forces should play no role in ISIL. Not only would they have us withdraw the CF-18s, they want to marginalize any sort of issue in terms of Canada being involved.

I believe that the Government of Canada has taken the right approach. One only needs to read the motion to get an understanding of the role that Canada will play into the future.

As was promised during the last federal election, the CF-18s are being withdrawn from the combat against ISIL. However, it does not mean that the bombings will end, because we have global coalition partners who will continue with the bombings. Canada's role will be better and enhanced in many different ways.

I see that my time is running out. I can perhaps conclude these remarks when responding to another question.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this member's intervention. However, on this side we disagree with many aspects of this motion.

One aspect that is important to note is that in a briefing on December 17, we had Canadian Armed Forces officials saying that the CF-18s provided cover when there were hundreds of ISIL soldiers attacking our position outside of Mosul. They were able to use the CF-18s to provide the needed air cover, and because the CF-18s were under Canadian command, they could immediately get that help.

Now we find out that that there are four Griffon helicopters there which can be used to medically evacuate people. Is this not a tacit admission that our troops may be more vulnerable and require medical evacuation capability because they do not have the required air support on call?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member underestimates the value of the global coalition. To give the impression that with the Canadian CF-18s no longer participating or being engaged there would not be that sort of coverage is ridiculous. There will be other partners who will provide that sort of air coverage. I even made that statement.

What is the Canadian government doing? We are tripling the size of our training force in northern Iraq. We will increase the amount of intelligence-gathering resources. We will be expanding our capacity to build efforts with Jordan and Lebanon to help stop the spread of violent extremism. Our humanitarian efforts are targeting the most vulnerable, including children and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. We will work with our international partners.

We are enhancing Canada's leadership and our role in a region that needs strong leadership. To give the impression that if we pull the CF-18s out that Canada would not be demonstrating leadership is just wrong. Canada is playing a very strong, coordinated leadership role in the Middle East, and we believe we will have a stronger, more important impact on fighting terrorism both abroad and here by taking such actions.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are looking for from the government is clarity and truth, so is this a combat mission or not? How is putting more boots on the ground not a combat mission?

Do you have an exit strategy? How long are you willing to put our men and women in the armed forces in harm's way? What criteria will you use to determine if you have taken the right approach? How will you know if it is not working, and why are you waiting two years to make that decision?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members to address their comment, questions, and the text of their speech to the chair, not to other hon. members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. When he says that he wants more clarity and truth, let us just read the motion before us. We are having a series of days of debate on it, and we have heard member after member, from the Liberal caucus in particular, talking about the things that the Liberal government is doing, headed by the current Prime Minister.

There is a great deal of accountability and transparency. Where we need more clarity is on where the New Democrats fall on it. They say that they want an exit strategy. We know the exit strategy of New Democrats: Do not enter.

Their approach at combatting terrorism is even at odds with a vast majority of Canadians. A vast majority of Canadians believe that Canada does have a role to play, and we recognize that role. Where we differ with the New Democrats is that we believe Canada does need to play a role; they believe that we do not. That is just based on the comments and speeches that I have heard delivered from members of the New Democratic Party on this very important issue.

Contrasting that to the Conservatives, I think Canadians are very much supportive of the general direction that the Liberal government is taking in combatting terrorism both here in Canada and abroad, and that we have the right approach, a comprehensive approach, to getting the job done in the Middle East in combatting ISIL.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate, surrounded by colleagues of the Conservative caucus, as we continue to debate this motion on the future mission against the Islamic State.

I thought I would start with bit of background information for the members, and for those perhaps watching on television, about the mission to date, particularly the mission regarding Canada's CF-18s. I think the numbers speak for themselves about what our brave women and men have already accomplished with respect to this mission and how it has impacted on the general mission, Operation Impact.

As of the beginning of this month, Canada's CF-18s have successfully embarked on 249 missions against ISIS fighting positions, 83 missions against ISIS equipment and vehicles, and 24 sorties against ISIS improvised explosive device factories and storage.

Clearly our women and men have been very impactful on Operation Impact, and they have contributed importantly to a very important mission. Canadians agree with that. Public opinion research has been very steady on this matter since the debate was raised by the current Liberal government. Over two-thirds of Canadians in fact support the continuation of the mission, that is to say, the use of our CF-18s in air strikes against ISIS positions.

That is the reality on the ground in Syria and Iraq, and that is the reality here in Canada as we go forward.

The Conservatives firmly believe that Canada should maintain its air combat role in the fight against ISIS and terrorism and that our CF-18s should be part of that fight.

That is our position. We have expressed it in this place in question period, and during this debate as well. We believe that the withdrawal from the combat mission against ISIS is a step backward from Canada's traditional role as fighters for human rights and international security.

Canada has a long, proud history of defending innocent and vulnerable populations by taking on those who commit mass atrocities. That is exactly the situation that is being countered by our allies in Iraq and Syria as we speak.

I would make the point that the ISIS and ISIS-inspired attacks have now spread beyond Iraq and Syria. This is an issue and challenge that is spread all around the world, in North America and other places where Canadians have been attacked.

Canadians have been attacked in recent weeks. Therefore, halting and degrading the Islamic State is more critical than ever to keeping people safe, not only perhaps in what some Canadians would view as faraway lands, but this has a direct impact on our safety and security here at home as well.

There is no question that Canada is a key ally.

Canada is a key ally in the air combat mission. It is currently the fifth-largest participant. It is extremely irresponsible of the government not only to reduce Canada's contribution, but to do so for political purposes.

It is very clear that the current Liberal government is using its past positions in this place, and its rhetoric during the election campaign, to step back from a critical mission. I would say to my hon. friends on the other side that if they need political cover to do the right thing, believe me, on this side of the House, we would be standing with them. If they would come clean to the people of Canada and say that things have changed since the election, that things are different after the Paris attacks, that they have seen the important work that our brave women and men were doing in the aerial campaign and they want to change their minds, on this side of the House, we would be applauding them.

We would not make any partisan jabs or jibes. This would not be a time where we would try to one-up them and say they are flip-flopping. There are a lot of issues they are flip-flopping on, but on this one, we want them to do the right thing.

They are willing to blow past their promise on a $10 billion deficit, and it is going to be multiples of that now. That promise they do not want to keep: the fiscal responsibility promise. However, now the Liberals feel that they have an important promise to keep at a time when we are needed to be side by side with our allies. That is the unconscionable part of the motion before us, and why we feel so strongly that we have to move to another position on this side of the House. We will, of course, be voting against the motion.

ISIS has declared war. At one point, Canada's Minister of National Defence said that there is no real war here. On the contrary, when the other side declares war on us and has the military means to act against our interests and against the safety of our citizenry, then whether we like it or not, there is a war going on.

ISIS has declared war on Canada and our allies. It is critical that the government continue to fight alongside our allies to defend and protect the safety of Canadians here and abroad.

I would say more in sorrow than in anger that the Liberals remain incoherent on this air combat mission. They have not provided a scintilla of explanation as to how the withdrawal of the CF-18s will help the coalition more effectively defeat ISIS.

Despite the Liberal government's opposition to the bombing, Canadian aircraft are still there refuelling the planes that conduct the air strikes and identifying targets for them. The Liberals are against the bombing but they are helping the bombing. This is the kind of incoherence that confuses our allies and that makes us, quite frankly, a laughingstock in the corridors of power of our allies. This is why we on this side of the House demand a more coherent strategy to work with our allies, to be on their side not only behind the scenes at the meetings we know take place, but to be up front. That is the message we want to send to the enemy. That is the help we want to give our allies. The government's motion is incoherent and contrary to the interests of Canadians.

We are a great country. We can do a lot of things simultaneously. We can be involved in the diplomatic mission, we can be involved in the humanitarian mission, and we can be involved in the aerial mission. We can contribute to the air strikes alongside the training, the humanitarian support, and the diplomatic endeavours to seek to contain the Islamic State.

Our personnel have been very effective over the past year. President Obama has said that air strikes are a key pillar in the fight against the Islamic State. Members do not have to believe me. They can believe the Democrat in the White House if they so choose.

While we support having a focus on humanitarian and security assistance, which is simply a continuation of what the Conservative Party did whilst in government, we should not distract from the effectiveness of the CF-18s in the mission.

The Prime Minister is sometimes prone to a bit of rhetorical fancy. He said, “The lethal enemy of barbarism isn't hatred. It's reason.” If reason is the answer, what reason justifies backing away from a just fight? This fight is just. This could be the fight of our generation. Alas, it could be the fight of future generations. I wish it were not the case but it could very well be the case.

The Prime Minister and the Liberals have said that Canada is back and yet one of the first substantive things that government did was to back away from the fight of a generation. We on this side of the House cannot countenance that. We cannot support that. We cannot vote for that. We will be voting against this resolution.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that our defence minister has all the qualifications and experience of a military man. He is monitoring the situation on the ground. He will never make a more difficult decision than this in order to cripple ISIS, and ISIS will be crippled.

Could my colleague tell me what he thinks about the role that our forces are playing with respect to providing planning, intelligence, and disrupting the black trafficking of crude oil by ISIS and cutting off its financial resources? What does he think of our forces working with the countries in the region to get better control of their borders in order to prevent fighters coming from other countries to join ISIS in Iraq and Syria? What is his evaluation of this? Could he explain why he believes that these things will not be good while the efficiency rate of the air strike is less than 2%?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a couple of things.

The Liberal government uses this 2% number, but I have gone through the actual facts and figures of the 249 sorties, and the impact they have had in reducing and degrading the ability of the Islamic State to wreak its havoc, death, and destruction in the region and to project that violence to other corners of the globe as well. I would say to the hon. member that we should be training and engaged in support services. Indeed, were we on the other side of this chamber over the last few months, we may have made those same decisions as well in terms of upping our training. We are not against that.

However, the fact of the matter is that the aerial mission remains a critical component of the campaign. As the hon. member may know, there are discussions going on in defence ministries around the alliance to move ahead against Mosul, to liberate Mosul from the grip of the Islamic State. Aerial power is going to be critical to that endeavour.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate very closely, both on Friday and today, and the two positions here from the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives would like to keep the bombers in the region, as well as limit humanitarian aid, whereas the Liberals are increasing troops on the ground and taking the fighters out.

My question for both parties, and of course for the member who has just given his speech, is on the exit strategy. The Liberals last week said that their strategy was to eradicate the enemy. When I pushed the members on that on the other side, they said it was to reduce ISIS to zero, to wipe them off the face of the earth.

This member mentioned “degrade”. That is an exit or end point for this mission. Does he go as far as “eradicate”, as the Liberals would do?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Islamic State is a threat both to regional security and to global security. The sooner it is dismantled and holds not one square centimetre of territory, the better the world will be. There is no question about that.

Let me just expand quickly on my point about Mosul. The next move of the coalition is to displace Islamic State from the city of Mosul. Let us be clear for people perhaps watching from home. The Islamic State is not a bunch of guys in tents in the desert. It controls a city of one million people, the city of Mosul. To displace the Islamic State and its ability to use all the resources of a major centre like Mosul for its death and destruction is a key element in the eradication of the ISIS threat. That is the next project of the alliance, and that is why Canada has to be in the air as well as on the ground.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier in this debate if he was willing to use the word “genocide” to describe the actions of ISIS. Unfortunately, he was not, because using that word would imply a responsibility to respond militarily, a responsibility to protect.

I wonder if the member can comment on the use of the word “genocide” in the context of what Daesh or ISIS is doing, and perhaps why the government is unwilling to use that terminology.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a good point. There seems to be, on the other side of this chamber in the Liberal government, a reluctance to use terms like “genocide”, like “terrorism”, and like “Islamic extremism”. The fact of the matter is each of these terms applies to the Islamic State. They do not have to take our word for it. Ask the Yazidis, ask the Christians, and ask the minority Islamic sects who have been targeted by the Islamic State. This is a war not only against our modern notions of civilization; this is a war against people in the region, who are the first line of targets and violence by these homicidal maniacs.

I do believe we have a responsibility and a duty to protect them as part of this grander alliance. To remove the aerial cover is a wrong decision. It cannot be defended, from a military point of view but also from a moral point of view.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, for me, this issue is about learning from past mistakes. Our government sent Canada to lead the air campaign against Libya in 2011. For those who listened to General Vance on the weekend, he reiterated that he thought there would need to be military action in Libya once again.

Back in 2011, we destroyed the Libyan power structure and created a vacuum. We created a vacuum because we had no follow-on plan. All we were going to do was go there and destroy things, but we had nothing designed for what the next steps were. Now look at what has happened. Four years later, we are talking about having to go back into Libya again. We do not want that to happen again in Iraq. It happened the first time in Iraq in 2003. We are back in Iraq now, but we are going to have a follow-on plan, because that is what we need in order to create long-term stability. Carrying out the air campaign and leaving is just not good enough.

Our CF-18s made significant contributions, of course, but now Canada has a vision and wants to focus the coalition to make sure it follows through with these long-term plans.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course we on this side of the House know that we have to be part of the longer-term plan. Once ISIS is displaced from its territory, there has to be a plan, there is no question about that. The Iraqi government has to be able to be a force in bringing people together in that country, which, during the al-Maliki period, it was not. There is no question about that. Of course, there has to be some kind of political resolution in Syria that again brings people together, in a way that they can do safely in the face of homicidal government.

The hon. member is correct, but she should realize that as long as the Islamic State has territory and controls territory, it is a threat. It is a threat to peace in region, to stability in the region, and to stability in Libya now as its tentacles move further away from Iraq and Syria, and it projects its violence around the world. That is the point. That is why air cover is necessary for the military objectives. We have humanitarian objectives and diplomatic objectives as well, but for the military objectives, the aerial cover is not only important but absolutely critically necessary.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, today I speak with conviction and satisfaction as I present the humanitarian aid and development and resilience programming elements of our government's plan to address the crisis in the Middle East.

My remarks will focus on the human dimension of the ongoing crisis in Iraq and Syria and its impact on the men, women, and children who have been forced to flee their homes and who now live in fear. Too many of them live in inhumane conditions. I will also talk about the neighbouring countries and the citizens of those countries who have shown tremendous generosity toward the refugees.

We hear numbers related to the crisis in Syria all the time. Over 11 million people have fled to other countries or been displaced within Syria because of the violence. Over 250,000 Syrians have been killed, and over 13.5 million Syrians need humanitarian aid. The conflict has devastated cities, ravaged whole neighbourhoods, and set the stage for indescribable atrocities.

The situation in Iraq is no better. Over the past two years, the conflict has displaced three million Iraqis. Right now, nearly four million people are living in ISIL-controlled areas to which humanitarian organizations have little or no access.

Considering the scope of the devastation, it is hard to fully appreciate the repercussions this crisis is having on the millions of people affected, including those who are living as refugees in other countries. The international community has a duty to act. We have a duty to act.

Earlier this month, I travelled to Jordan and Lebanon to try to get a better understanding of the needs of the families, communities, and governments affected by the crisis. I saw for myself the unimaginable hardship these people are going through. I also heard the perspectives of senior government officials, representatives from the UN and NGOs, teachers, community workers, and Syrian families who have been driven from their homes.

In hundreds of schools in Jordan and Lebanon, school days have been shortened to half a day so that refugee groups can be received in the afternoons.

Despite the generosity of local communities, hundreds of thousands of refugee children are still forced to work illegally and in deplorable conditions to provide financial support for their families.

Nearly two million children are no longer going to school in Syria, and another 700,000 Syrian children are in the same situation elsewhere in the region. An entire generation of girls and boys is not getting an education, which will have enormous long-term human and economic consequences.

Education is the cement that allows societies to build a democracy and maintain peace, and it forms the foundation of economic growth. The impact of this educational deficiency will be felt not only in the countries that are welcoming refugees, but also throughout Syria and Iraq when it comes time to rebuild there.

I heard from the head of one Syrian family who took shelter in a warehouse, with her nine children: nine mouths to feed, bodies too close, minds to teach, futures to prepare for, all without access to employment. Her husband is still in Syria.

I heard from children who wanted to be doctors, journalists, and teachers. It was uplifting to hear how typical their hopes were. They were not very different from the hopes and dreams of our children in Canada. Yet, these children all face dire obstacles before they can see their dreams become reality. Despite their endless energy, determination, and resolve, they were out of school without permission to work and, for many girls, facing the prospect of early marriage.

The majority of these children will face adult challenges long before they rightly should.

These countries, communities, and the refugee families that have escaped violence in their own country, desperately need our help.

It is for these reasons that I was pleased to support the Prime Minister in announcing our government's comprehensive strategy for the Middle East, which includes a significant funding package to address the needs of the poorest and the most vulnerable ones in the region.

The strategy will serve as a comprehensive and significant contribution by Canada to respond to the humanitarian crisis, and to lay the foundation for greater peace and security in the region. It provides direction for considered and timely military and security assistance. It reinforces our role as a compassionate, forward-thinking nation that will not turn away from those most in need; it prepares them for the trials of tomorrow; and it sets out the essential task of engaging in meaningful political dialogue to help end these dangerous conflicts.

By taking this approach, we recognize, as do our international partners, that this is one of the worst crises the world has ever had to face. Unfortunately, the crisis in Syria and the region could last a long time, as could the reconstruction period that will follow. With that in mind, I consulted with the communities affected and our partners in order to assess what was needed.

I am very proud that our plan involves humanitarian aid and significant resilience and development programming over a three-year period. This is the first time in the history of our country that the government has made a multi-year humanitarian commitment. This new way of doing things shows my commitment to fulfilling the mandate that I was given by the Prime Minister to make Canada a leader in development innovation and effectiveness.

As part of our overall strategy, we will invest $1.1 billion over three years in humanitarian assistance and resilience and development programming for the must vulnerable people affected by this crisis in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Of this $1.1 billion, $840 million will be spent on humanitarian aid programs designed to provide life-saving assistance, such as food, emergency health services, water, housing, basic education, and protection.

This contribution over three years will allow Canada to work more effectively with the United Nations, international organizations, and donors to improve the delivery of humanitarian aid in the region.

Given the ongoing nature of this crisis, the number of people in need is constantly growing. With the help of trusted partners who have experience on the ground, we will be able to assist the most vulnerable, including children and victims of sexual violence, gender-based violence, and early and forced marriage.

Canada is aware that the resources available to deal with new and existing humanitarian crises throughout the world are limited. That is why we will look at forming new partnerships in order to mobilize other resources to support humanitarian work throughout the world and make sure that such assistance is effective and efficient in the Middle East.

Our department can count on a skilled team and the experience of our partners in the region to determine where the needs are greatest and where Canadian assistance will be most useful and best complement that of the other donors.

I am proud to remind hon. members that Canada has always upheld the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence, and humanity. I want to emphasize how important it is that all donors adhere to these principles, as the safety of the humanitarian workers and access by humanitarian organizations to people under siege, such as the people of Madaya, depend on all parties involved in a conflict recognizing these principles.

Upholding humanitarian principles does not preclude the necessary review procedures that my department follows with regard to all its partners. By taking a stringent approach to analyzing and monitoring the projects and organizations that we support financially, we ensure that we are dealing with reliable partners that have all the skills necessary for providing relief to civilians caught in the middle of the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world.

These experienced partners have long had strict accountability systems in place to help provide assurances that the money is used only for its intended purposes and as efficiently and appropriately as possible. The purpose of these systems is to ensure that every dollar spent has the greatest impact possible on the lives of the people in need of our assistance.

We assess the partners with whom we work and make every effort to ensure that they comply with appropriate anti-terrorism requirements. UN agencies and other humanitarian organizations have put in place strong accountability measures to counter the risk of diversion of humanitarian assistance, including agency staff accompanying relief convoys and the use of third party monitors.

Let us speak about development and resilience programming now. As much as this crisis represents a human tragedy, it also has implications for the security and stability of nations. We need to ensure that greater chaos across the region is avoided.

When I met with my Jordanian and Lebanese counterparts, I heard from them about the grim conditions that pose an immediate and ongoing threat to the stability of their countries. Before the Syria crisis, unemployment levels were already high. Rents were steep, and income levels were down. With more than 625,000 registered refugees arriving in Jordan and 1.2 million arriving in Lebanon over the last three years, these pressures have brought their societies and economies to the brink.

I would ask my colleagues to picture their own communities having to contend with a sudden increase of 30% or 40%, and indeed in some cases, communities have doubled in size. This is simply unsustainable. How would our constituents respond in the face of such pressure?

During my time in the Middle East, I also heard from the city mayors who saw the population of their municipalities increase by one-third in 14 months. The pressure this is placing on health clinics, water networks, electricity grids, and other municipal services is something that would alarm any government official or local citizen.

Local citizens of countries neighbouring Syria have done far more already than the international community could ever have expected of them. However, the tremendous strain that the influx of people has placed on certain municipalities is about to fuel social tensions between local citizens and refugees. We cannot stand by and watch as the social fabrics, the economies, and the very infrastructure of refugee hosting countries in the region begin to fracture. How can they be expected to suffer for their generosity?

With $270 million in resilience and development programming, also over three years, we will extend our work, in particular in Jordan and Lebanon, to help communities transcend their ability to manage the crisis on a sustainable basis. We will help develop the capacity to provide services to host communities as well as refugees. We will work with affected populations to ensure that they have the tools required to start to rebuild their fractured society when the crisis is over.

Our programs will help create jobs, increase children's access to education, and ensure that people have access to the essential services they so desperately need.

Our programs in the region will teach local officials how to operate water supply systems, an effective means of preventing water-borne diseases associated with unsanitary conditions.

We will provide a safe and healthy learning environment for the children of the local populations and the refugees, which will entail renovating schools and improving water supply, water treatment, and sanitary facilities.

Our new strategy will focus on a comprehensive, integrated, long-term approach to dealing with the crisis. We will show leadership by drawing on our areas of excellence, and we will work with experienced and effective multilateral partners who have strategic access on the ground.

We will use new and different methods in working with the people and countries affected. For example, we will support Jordan's commitment to put in place conditions that will create jobs for Syrian refugees in exchange for greater targeted development aid and better access to foreign markets for Jordanian exports. This will allow us to provide strategic assistance and take into account the long-term nature of the crisis.

I want to emphasize that the aid we are providing will do more than just meet immediate needs. It is clear to everyone that this will be an ongoing crisis with long-term consequences even after the end of hostilities.

Under our new three-year approach, we will take strategic action and implement programs, with careful planning and adequate funding. We will develop programs that help strengthen local populations and countries that accept refugees, to ensure that their societies can cope with these devastating events and come out stronger.

In a prolonged crisis like the one in the Middle East, we strongly believe in resilience programming to help fill the gap between humanitarian assistance and development projects. We are in a position to be one of the leaders in this area. For example, immediate access to temporary, informal education is the first key step supported by our humanitarian assistance.

Also on the topic of resilience, we must work with local authorities to strengthen the education system and improve access to and quality of the services over the long term for the next generation. This approach is the most sustainable way to respond to this prolonged crisis.

By creating immediate access to basic services like education through our programming, we are creating the conditions within communities that protect individuals. Our projects will help keep children safe from the dangers of conflict, protecting young boys from the attraction of extremist groups, and girls from early and forced marriage.

We also realize that a lack of good governance and poor economic growth create a vacuum that extremists can exploit by providing false hope and promises to desperate populations. Our programming will therefore be designed to foster inclusive economic growth and employment in order to advert the human costs of failing to do so.

These are crucial long-term goals that require long-term engagement in and commitment to the region.

We will provide assistance that meets the needs of the refugees themselves, who must be able to earn a living, go to school, and maintain or develop skills so they are able to rebuild Syria as soon as the security and political situation permits.

We will work to help prepare for the longed for peace in the region. We will work with the international community to help establish the human capital required to rebuild when the time is right. We need to act today for the good of tomorrow and prepare for peace.

Our comprehensive strategy will show the people, local governments, and Canadian and international partners that Canada takes this crisis seriously and that we realize that a multi-faceted approach is the only way to put an end to this crisis.

We know that this is a complex crisis, which must be taken into account in our actions. We must be consistent in developing and managing our actions. Although we respect humanitarian principles, we will continue to be extremely vigilant in ensuring that Canada's contributions are used only for their intended purposes.

Our $1.1-billion contribution in humanitarian assistance, and in resilience and development programming is a key part of this action. This contribution is an acknowledgement that we can and must do everything possible to help those who are suffering and who need our help.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not argue with the members across the aisle that this needs to be a multi-pronged approach to defeat ISIS, the need for increased ground support and humanitarian work that has been planned, but it must be a fully supporting approach.

Is the government admitting that it is making a financial decision, not a military decision, because the Liberals have overspent so much since coming to power last October that they can no longer afford to fully support our troops and the missions against ISIS?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to remind the House that our government has made a long-term, three-year commitment: $1.1 billion for humanitarian and development aid. The $870 million for humanitarian aid represents 30% more than what was given over the past three years.

The $270 million for development and resilience aid is more than double what was given in the past. We are very proud of that because we believe that our comprehensive, integrated approach is essential to addressing the Syrian crisis.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the good description of the devastation we see there, and for her comment on the course of humanitarian assistance.

Her comments about the fact that the interventions need to be integrated were important to me. One way we can protect individuals is by assisting to ensure the arms that go over there do not fall into the wrong hands.

We have heard a promise that the government will sign the UN arms trade treaty, which will help prevent the flow of arms to terrorists and insurgent groups, and protect innocent people in the region. Could the member explain why the delay in signing that treaty?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is working on that file. I will leave it to him to update us on that file.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her excellent speech. I am proud to have served in Iraq for nearly seven years as a United Nations official.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the Conservative Party of this conflict. In fact, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka undermined his own case for continued air strikes when he referred to the city of Mosul. Mosul has a population of 1.7 million, as he correctly pointed out, but ISIL is now enmeshed in that population. It is in charge of hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure.

In that setting, could the hon. minister inform the House how much more important humanitarian intervention is and local training, and how inappropriate continued air strikes may be in that setting?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Our integrated approach, which includes revised military actions following genuine consultations with our allies and partners, as well as humanitarian aid and development aid, will enable us to have a much better impact on the Syrian crisis. Our partners have confirmed that to be the case. I thank my colleague for clarifying.